It was a presentation that would have made Steve Jobs proud. Just as Jobs knew how to stun the public and the press with a shiny new Apple product, Apple lawyer Harold McElhinny was smooth and direct in his presentation. Using big bold slides, and a bit of video to show off the best features, he laid out a simple version of smartphone history that put his client at the center: Apple came first. Imitators like Samsung followed. And now it's time for them to pay up.

How did Samsung move from the phones it was making in 2006 to the sleek, large-screen smartphones it was selling in 2010, asked McElhinny? "To answer that question, we have to go back to January 9, 2007," he told the jury. "That's when Steve Jobs introduced the iPhone at the Macworld conference."

McElhinny's monologue, a bit over an hour, was like a sleek Apple marketing pitch, with legal language seamlessly mixed in. The speech was the first building block of Apple's giant patent case against Samsung. The iconic Cupertino company wants more than $2.5 billion in damages from its Korean competitor, as well as injunctions that would kick Samsung's products off the market.

At times McElhinny waxed rhapsodic about his client, its innovative culture, and the products it created.

"At the same time Mr. Jobs introduced the iPhone, he warned his competitors that he had filed for patent protection on more than 200 new inventions in the phone," he said. "Over 200 new inventions—let's think about what that means. It's about creating... a user experience so unique and intuitive that it just feels right."

Apple is a company that "always has its eye on the future," McElhinny continued: "What the world needed, and it didn't have, was a phone that had the capabilities of a computer. Apple designed an entirely new product—a phone, a Web browser, and a music player. It was a phone design that the world had never seen. Physical keyboards would become a thing of the past. It required an entirely new hardware system. It required an entirely new user interface. That interface had to become completely intuitive."

Critics had hailed the iPhone, too, McElhinny said. Slides flashed by—The New York Times and Wired lavishing praise on the iPhone, Time calling it the 2007 Invention of the Year.

"What struck me about the iPhone was—there's no manual," said McElhinny. "You had to walk into the store, pick it up, and get drawn in to use the device. If that didn't happen immediately—you'd never buy it."

Then McElhinny inveighed against Samsung, the accused copier.

"Apple's competitors immediately recognized the impact of the new device," said McElhinny. "Samsung was faced with a choice: it could come up with its own designs, and beat Apple fairly in the marketplace. Or it could copy Apple."

And copy Apple it did, he said, producing sleek black-faced phones with big screens and using the same user-interface features that Apple had patented, like a "bounce back" feature for scrolling and a method of navigating screens with a quick double tap.

"At the highest corporate levels, Samsung decided to copy every element of the iPhone," said McElhinny.

The press had noticed, too. "Samsung Vibrant rips off iPhone 3G design," read one headline that was shown to the jury.

Next up in the Apple-approved history: the iPad. "Can you believe the iPad has only been around for two years?" said a briefly awed McElhinny, going on to call it "magical" and "revolutionary," echoing the bubbly headlines of 2010 and Apple's own marketing.

Quick videos demonstrated the features of each of Apple's three utility patents in the case. One was over the "rubber band" feature, where documents or images snap back into place when a finger pushes them off a touchscreen; another covered the idea of allowing a double-tap to navigate a screen without zooming out. The company alleges those features popped up in Samsung phones shortly after being patented by Apple.

The jury should reject any suggestion that the user-interface features Apple designers cooked up are unimportant, warned McElhinny. The patented features were important so that customers could "intuitively" use the devices. "My four-year-old granddaughter taught herself to use an iPad," he said. "If these were trivial, why did they show up in your [Samsung's] customer surveys, and why did you copy them?"

McElhinny ended with a promise that the jury will see the story in Samsung's own documents. Those documents—acquired during painstaking discovery and translated into English—show more than 100 instances where Samsung altered its phones and tablets to achieve the goal of making them "identical to Apple products," he said.

The attorney accused Samsung of profiting enormously from its strategy. Samsung has made more than 22 million infringing phones, which have earned more than $2 billion in profit, according to Apple's calculations.

Samsung's defense: it's competition, not infringement

Within a few minutes of his opening, Verhoeven was wheeling through slides of patent designs from Japan and Korea that reached back to 2006, 2005, even back to 2004—years before the iPhone was launched.

"This is the Korean '547 patent," said Verhoeven. "Again, you've got a large rectangular screen."

Apple's products may be successful, Verhoeven noted, but that doesn't mean the company was first to create these innovations—they're not true inventions. "There's a distinction between commercial success and inventing something."

Same story with the iPad. Verhoeven showed computer tablets with similar forms stretching back to a 1994 tablet called the "Fiddler."

"They didn't invent a large touchscreen with rounded corners," said Verhoeven. That had been made before—it's just that it had taken years for the market to demand such large screens.

"We're not saying it wasn't a great product," said Verhoeven. "It was inspiring to everyone, including the competition."

Cell phones evolved. "As functionality increased, the entire industry moved towards screens that are much, much larger," he said. "Nobody's going to want to watch a movie on a tiny little screen."

"Is that infringement?" he continued. "No, the evidence is going to show, that's competition. It's providing the consumer what the consumer wants. If the consumer wants a phone with a large screen and touch face, Samsung provides that. It's not some Johnny-come-lately developing knockoffs. It's creating technology that is what people want."

Samsung makes all kinds of phones, Verhoeven said. Phones that slide, "folder-type" flip phones, and "bar type" phones with big screens that look more similar to Apple's products.

"Unlike Apple, that basically makes just one kind of phone, Samsung makes all kinds of phones for all kinds of people."

Verhoeven also touted his client's history of innovation—a pioneer in the mobile business since 1991, Samsung employs more than 20,000 engineers and has invested $35 billion in research and development just from 2005 to 2010, he said. The company is no "copyist," Verhoeven said. "Samsung is a major technology company, doing its own innovation."

The presentation was a sometimes choppy follow-up to McElhinny's smooth attack a few minutes before. Verhoeven read many slides directly and seemed to repeat his themes; a video had volume that jumped up and down wildly, and even stopped playing at one point.

A stressful first day with a smaller jury

It wasn't just Samsung's strained presentation; the day had a stressful feeling from the start. The hallway was packed with dozens of reporters, lawyers, and observers, who filed into the court minutes before arguments began.

Stress was the first thing the judge wanted to talk about, in fact. One of the jurors was feeling stressed, to the point of having panic attacks, said US District Judge Lucy Koh. The situation with the juror's pay wasn't made clear by her boss, and she wanted off the jury. Koh checked that the parties had no objections and then let her go, turning the ten-person jury into a panel of nine.

Before opening arguments even started, stress turned into sparks, as a Samsung lawyer beseeched Koh to kick out one of Apple's slides.

"Your Honor, I've been practicing 36 years, and I've never begged the court," said John Quinn, name partner at Quinn Emanuel, Samsung's law firm. "I'm begging the court now to hear this issue—"

"I've reviewed what you filed yesterday," said Koh, testily. "I heard argument on this yesterday. Mr. Quinn, please, we've had three reconsiderations on this."

"Can I ask the court for some explanation?" said Quinn.

"Mr. Quinn, don't make me sanction you, please. You've had two, if not three, if not four opportunities to brief this."

"Can I change the subject?" asked Quinn.

"No," said Koh. "I want you to sit down. Please."

Openings began shortly after that and went past the lunch break. They were followed by the first witness, Apple designer Christopher Stringer, listed as an inventor on many of Apple's patents. Stringer, a lanky middle-aged man with shoulder-length gray hair and a goatee, didn't take the stand until almost 3:00. The iPhone was an "icon," he said simply, "the most beautiful of our designs."

He was even-keeled, but the designer didn't mince words. "We've been ripped off, it's plain to see," he said. "By Samsung in particular."

After Stringer stepped down, Apple VP Philip Schiller took the stand for just a few minutes. The trial now takes a break until Friday, when Schiller will re-take the stand.

It's pretty clear that the iPhone was a game changer when it came onto the scene. Sure, smartphones and PDAs already existed -- then Apple did it right. They deserve credit for that... question is going to be how much... especially given that even with the competition they are hugely successful.

It's pretty clear that the iPhone was a game changer when it came onto the scene. Sure, smartphones and PDAs already existed -- then Apple did it right. They deserve credit for that... question is going to be how much... especially given that even with the competition they are hugely successful.

They're not suing for credit though. And there in lies the problem. They're trying to claim that they were the first to do things that were already done.

It's pretty clear that the iPhone was a game changer when it came onto the scene. Sure, smartphones and PDAs already existed -- then Apple did it right. They deserve credit for that... question is going to be how much... especially given that even with the competition they are hugely successful.

They're not suing for credit though. And there in lies the problem. They're trying to claim that they were the first to do things that were already done.

Moreover, they want to be last in the game of leapfrog. The Galaxy S3 is, to my eyes, worlds ahead of the iPhone. I have no doubt that Apple would enjoin the judge to prevent consumers from buying this phone as well.

It's pretty clear that the iPhone was a game changer when it came onto the scene. Sure, smartphones and PDAs already existed -- then Apple did it right. They deserve credit for that... question is going to be how much... especially given that even with the competition they are hugely successful.

They're not suing for credit though. And there in lies the problem. They're trying to claim that they were the first to do things that were already done.

Correct.

Apple popularized a suite of services that were available already on existing "smart phones" and separate "PDAs" like those produced by HP and Compaq.

Did Apple "do it right"? Absolutely. I don't think anyone's disputing that. However, to say that they "invented" a completely new product is absolute bullshit, any more than claiming the iPod was a completely new product. The iPhone just followed the iPod's pattern (and Apple's at large), which was to take a piece of seemingly enthusiast technology and package it for the layman. After all, isn't that what they did with their first personal computer?

I doubt anyone at Apple would claim that the Apple computer was a "new invention". All it did was build upon (in the right way) the advances which had already taken place in the computer industry, and wrap it in a package that appealed to Joe Everyman.

It's pretty clear that the iPhone was a game changer when it came onto the scene. Sure, smartphones and PDAs already existed -- then Apple did it right. They deserve credit for that... question is going to be how much... especially given that even with the competition they are hugely successful.

Nokia alone sold 38 million smartphones in 2006. They not only existed, but they sold pretty darn well. You might also note that as of Q106, more Symbian phones had been sold than iPods of all kinds.

None of this is to take away from Apple's accomplishment, but don't overstate their case. It's simply not true that they invented the smartphone. They didn't even invent the form factor. They did put a bunch of other people's work together with a bunch of their own into a package that was more consumer friendly than anyone else's attempt up to that point.

Also, Apple did not show a smartphone in January 2007. They showed a midrange feature phone with a very large screen. Only later did they turn it into a low end smartphone with a very large screen. Later still they finally started making high end phones.

I will have to follow this closely, especially due to not knowing which side will win. Though by Apple's start "we innovated" kinda fell a little flat to me personally, since if they win it will be "we innovated, so nothing else even slightly similar may exist".

PS by not knowing I mean that no argument so far smacks of logically unsound. I am not a psychic.

This sort of BS always pisses me off. An infant can learn that patting the screen in iPhoto causes the picture to change, sure, big deal - that's irrelevant. Get back to me when she select and copy text or open a link in Safari in a new tab. Once you get beyond the basics, a touch interface can be far more clumsy (and un'magical') than a mouse/button system.

This isn't really about "inventing the smartphone" or not. As Blackberry showed (at the time), it was possible to make a smartphone that was completely different from the iPhone. It's about making a smartphone that uses the specific features Apple used and patented.

Ideally for Samsung, they can convince the jury that they didn't violate those patents. Given how they're worded, that could be difficult. Their backup plan is probably to argue that the patents shouldn't have been granted at all because they're such generic functions. That might make sense, but it'll be much harder to convince the jury that the Patent Office needs to be overturned. If they get to that point, they're in trouble.

I wonder if Apple will try to show the jurors that one can make a smartphone without the features they feel they own. If I were a juror, I think that'd have a significant effect on me.

Back in 2000, I had a Samsung SPH-i300. Full touchscreeen, icons for programs, required a stylus (because of the tech), had apps, could browse the internet (as well as any phone at least because rendering websites was difficult with only 16 colors), but it was certainly a 'smart phone' and a precursor to today's devices.

This seems like a bunch of bullcrap. I've been an iphone user since the very beginning and even I can say that it's not an entirely newly "invented" product. It's a pda, mp3 player, and a phone mixed into one, simple as that.

It's pretty clear that the iPhone was a game changer when it came onto the scene. Sure, smartphones and PDAs already existed -- then Apple did it right. They deserve credit for that... question is going to be how much... especially given that even with the competition they are hugely successful.

They're not suing for credit though. And there in lies the problem. They're trying to claim that they were the first to do things that were already done.

In the legal world, you have to sue for what you can sue. Even though the core belief that apple has (Samsung nay all android phones) in some way are copies of apples iPhone and it's iOS software -- you cannot blindly go ahead and sue for that. You have to surgically use the word of the law to do whatever damage you can to the competition.

Back in 2000, I had a Samsung SPH-i300. Full touchscreeen, icons for programs, required a stylus (because of the tech), had apps, could browse the internet (as well as any phone at least because rendering websites was difficult with only 16 colors), but it was certainly a 'smart phone' and a precursor to today's devices.

That was available 6 years before the iPhone.

Hopefully they'll bring it up, then. And, remembering my old Sony Clie, you could use your finger in a pinch for a few things.

Back in 2000, I had a Samsung SPH-i300. Full touchscreeen, icons for programs, required a stylus (because of the tech), had apps, could browse the internet (as well as any phone at least because rendering websites was difficult with only 16 colors), but it was certainly a 'smart phone' and a precursor to today's devices.

That was available 6 years before the iPhone.

Hopefully they'll bring it up, then. And, remembering my old Sony Clie, you could use your finger in a pinch for a few things.

This sort of BS always pisses me off. An infant can learn that patting the screen in iPhoto causes the picture to change, sure, big deal - that's irrelevant. Get back to me when she select and copy text or open a link in Safari in a new tab. Once you get beyond the basics, a touch interface can be far more clumsy (and un'magical') than a mouse/button system.

Seriously. My 3-year-old navigates the legos.com website on a PC with no issue. While flicking and scrolling with your finger is nice and intuitive it's not as if young people had it too tough adapting prior to the iPad.

"The presentation was a sometimes choppy follow-up to McElhinny's smooth attack a few minutes before. Verhoeven read many slides directly and seemed to repeat his themes; a video had volume that jumped up and down wildly, and stopped playing at one point."

I'm sorry... but this reads like a fanboy's argument. The inference is that just because a lawyer re-iterated a few of his themes, and that because the volume of one of the lawyer's videos had jumped up and down, he somehow has a weak argument.

People can come to the same ideas or conclusions without any interference of each other or a separate third party. Like calculus(Newton/Leibniz) or evolution by way of natural selection( Alfred Russel Wallace\Charles Darwin).

I'm not going to argue if Samsung is right or wrong because I think that sometimes they did infringe but at the same time Apple is going overboard. However I don't like the feeling that Apple will try to sway the jury based on popularity and emotion instead of facts.

The key to this trial will be in those Samsung e-mails McElhinny was promising. If Apple can show that a substantial part of Samsung's design process was "don't do that, do what Apple did," given the similarity in the devices themselves, Samsung is sunk.

Because that clearly demonstrates (a) you CAN make a smartphone different than the iPhone, (b) Samsung could have easily done so, and (c) chose not to anyways.

It's pretty clear that the iPhone was a game changer when it came onto the scene. Sure, smartphones and PDAs already existed -- then Apple did it right. They deserve credit for that... question is going to be how much... especially given that even with the competition they are hugely successful.

They're not suing for credit though. And there in lies the problem. They're trying to claim that they were the first to do things that were already done.

In the legal world, you have to sue for what you can sue. Even though the core belief that apple has (Samsung nay all android phones) in some way are copies of apples iPhone and it's iOS software -- you cannot blindly go ahead and sue for that. You have to surgically use the word of the law to do whatever damage you can to the competition.

No you don't. The culture of a company can dictate how litigious it is. There is no mandate to sue whenever possible, not even in the capital of capitalism that is the US. The Apple corporate philosophy of being a son of a bitch is not its fate, it is a choice made by its founder. Promoting the mindset that we sue because we can does a disservice to society.

It's pretty clear that the iPhone was a game changer when it came onto the scene. Sure, smartphones and PDAs already existed -- then Apple did it right. They deserve credit for that... question is going to be how much... especially given that even with the competition they are hugely successful.

They're not suing for credit though. And there in lies the problem. They're trying to claim that they were the first to do things that were already done.

In the legal world, you have to sue for what you can sue. Even though the core belief that apple has (Samsung nay all android phones) in some way are copies of apples iPhone and it's iOS software -- you cannot blindly go ahead and sue for that. You have to surgically use the word of the law to do whatever damage you can to the competition.

No you don't. The culture of a company can dictate how litigious it is. There is no mandate to sue when ever possible, not even in the capital of capitalism that is the US. The Apple corporate philosophy of being a son of a bitch is not its fate, it is a choice made by its founder. Promoting the mindset that we sue because we can does a disservice to society.

My sentiments are along with what your point is. However,If you are a publicly traded company - the shareholders might not agree with you.

This is even more true when you are producing the type of stuff that is hard to come up with but easy to copy (e.g. Fashion items)

My sentiments are along with what your point is. However,If you are a publicly traded company - the shareholders might not agree with you.

This is even more true when you are producing the type of stuff that is hard to come up with but easy to copy (e.g. Fashion items)

I don't think Sun Microsystems was a litigious company, even though it was a public one. There are accommodations even a publicly traded one makes in the interests of the community. Funding the arts is one. Not being a prick in the courts is another ;-). I don't think Apple has a history of either of these.

This sort of BS always pisses me off. An infant can learn that patting the screen in iPhoto causes the picture to change, sure, big deal - that's irrelevant. Get back to me when she select and copy text or open a link in Safari in a new tab.

You really need to watch a child with an iPad sometime. My 3-year-old can switch apps via gestures and navigate the springboard.